User:Ruud Koot/Feed

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 24 May 2024 – Alma-0 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)

Proposed deletions

  • 24 May 2024 – Little Smalltalk (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c): concern
  • 24 May 2024 – Liberty BASIC (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 90.167.203.248 (t · c): concern
  • 24 May 2024 – Yoix (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c): concern
  • 24 May 2024 – F-Script (programming language) (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c): concern
  • 21 May 2024 – Locomotive BASIC (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 85.48.187.33 (t · c): concern
  • 21 May 2024 – Lite-C (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Charcoal feather (t · c): concern
  • 21 May 2024 – Run BASIC (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 90.167.202.4 (t · c): concern
  • 20 May 2024 – Judoscript (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 26 May 2024

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(27 more...)

Shortcut
  • WP:COMP/AA

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(36 more...)

Proposed deletions

(17 more...)

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(29 more...)

Articles to be split

(18 more...)

Articles for creation

(53 more...)

Computing

Cribl

Cribl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Scene description language

Scene description language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Exocentric environment

Exocentric environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endocentric environment which was nominated with: "No refs on the page for many years. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion". Shreevatsa (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, or potentially redirect to virtual reality with a topic merge. The majority of scholarly articles that use this terminology set are not independent of its creators (Ivica Bukvic and Disha Sardana, inter alia), but there's a little bit out there that might be usable. I don't think it stands alone as much more than a dictionary definition, but it might warrant a brief mention in the parent topic and, thus, a redirect. Maybe. Lubal (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ecto (software)

AfDs for this article:
Ecto (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ripple20

Ripple20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewired (demoparty)

Rewired (demoparty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable event; no secondary coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Exformation

Exformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A gestalt article on three different articles that define this word differently. No substantial independent coverage for any definition. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher)

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all sources show that Kokotajlo is notable only because of his controversial resignment from OpenAI. There are no profiles of him or his research, and I can't find any info that he won any major award or led a major team, etc. Wikipedia is not a news site, and I think that the policy says exactly this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Martha O'Kennon

Martha O'Kennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Retired professor with single-digit number of publications, one with 24 citations on Google Scholar and all the rest less than 10, far from enough for WP:PROF. All sources are by her or from her employer, inadequate for WP:GNG. This was already draftified and restored to article space (by copy & paste) without any significant improvement; for draft history see [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mathematics, Computing, China, Michigan, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Record looks far short of WP:NPROF, and no other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. She also does not meet WP:BASIC. I found one news article talking about art pieces she makes, and nothing more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Search turned up nothing to meet notability on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing came up in a search that would indicate any sort of notability. Also of note, the article creator Davidpgca (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to writing articles on Albion College related people and topics, including a number that may or may not meet notability standards. nf utvol (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Comment that, looking through images contributed by Davidpgca [2], all the images appear to be tagged as "own work". That appears to be true for very few of them (in particular, not for the ones that are 80 years old). Anyone know how to report at Commons? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I noticed that myself. I have gone in and tagged the items that are not clearly in the public domain for removal on the basis that this user is not the owner of the works. nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. She seems to have led a neat life, but not one that rises quite to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 16:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The citability data is quite low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Alma-0

AfDs for this article:
Alma-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Tomar

AfDs for this article:
Joshua Tomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


  • Keep

The nomination for deletion is inaccurate. The appropriate category is WP:ENT, not Creative. Subject meets inclusion standards by a comfortable margin. He has appeared in a notable amount of high profile video games and shows and has working relationships with a notable amount of prominent people within his industry. He also co-owns an animation studio which has been involved with many major projects. He has received an award relevant to his industry that is only given to one person per year. He is a longtime member on a well-established and influential youtube channel.

Many of the acting credits are verified through the IMDB citation, which Wikipedia lists as an acceptable source. His roles are also verified through other databases, as well as specific citations on particular roles, which is why there are citations of passing mentions of him with regard to specific roles.

The article should be kept as the subject qualifies under WP:ENT and the overall sourcing is acceptable; if there are issues with individual sources that could be handled in Talk or through the removal or addition of sources instead of a page deletion. KEP95 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)




Adrianus Warmenhoven

Adrianus Warmenhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Incubate and draftify at this point. This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion. I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO, however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG. I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. He was the primary subject of this WP:RS. Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability. He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis. He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace. There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability. Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in. Bgv. (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Falls short of the GNG. Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

4Dwm

AfDs for this article:
4Dwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP: N. There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Gayathri Vivekanandan

Gayathri Vivekanandan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Recently, the draft was declined by me. Upon my further check, I couldn’t find anything other than interviews or her own words in articles. These sources are not in-depth and can’t establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had performed an BEFORE prior to S0091's draftification, and believe it very likely that the subject is not able to meet BASIC. With the history, I am also convinced this article is likely an undisclosed advertisement. Honestly I'd call it borderline A7, but its probably easier to let this run and deal witb future creations via G4. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speech Prof —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page on this living person is poorly sourced with no significant coverage to consider the subject notable to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Same article creator and same issues, I'm unable to locate sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per GNG. I was unable to find any non-trivial coverage of the subject via reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Gecko Gear

AfDs for this article:
Gecko Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?
    We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17. No This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content. – Not really applicable – No
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times.

Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy)

No – No Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make. No
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24. No Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh. – – At least it's actually vaguely about the subject? No
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age. – – No Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating? –
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170 TWL – – No There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company) –
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

XML appliance

XML appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Iligan Computer Institute

Iligan Computer Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private school that may not be notable due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

CombinedX

CombinedX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I spotted the delete tag and since I am Swedish, I thought to give my opinion. There is a Swedish Wikipedia page for it, so I will look at that and check sources. Atlassian (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I am still reading Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and checking how it's done on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22 as well as on other dates. Atlassian (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, this is a clear keep.
There already is a great explanation on the talk page. I will soon add some comments of my own. Atlassian (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Building on the explanation that's already present on the talk page:
  1. This is a publicly traded company. You and I and anyone else can literally become shareholders tomorrow or the day after. This alone is notable.
  2. Furthermore, as a publicly traded company, it is legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports. Those reports are frequent and very detailed, the latest I could find was 128 pages long. This is not your run-of-the-mill routine coverage. This is much more detailed than a newspaper article.
    Here is some information from Bolagsverket and Swedish Economic Crime Authority about penalties and prison sentences associated with information delays and false information in reporting – [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
  3. I could also find multiple reliable, independent, secondary and significant-coverage sources as specified Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Here are three examples from Swedish business magazine Affärsvärlden: [8], [9], podcast analysis. And there are many others.
  4. Also, the comment left on the talk page is accurate in saying that there are many many less notable companies on Wikipedia.
Atlassian (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
re legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports specifically, regulatory filings, while meeting the "detailed" and "reliable" parts, do not meet the "secondary" or "independent" parts of the criteria. Haven't looked at the press coverage though, so I won't leave an actual opinion unless I have the time to do so later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I am away today, so I'll attempt to make a writeup in one go, in bullet-point form.
  1. I am new to Articles_for_deletion part of Wikipedia, but the rules are clear and I think that I have a good grasp of them now.
  2. Indeed, regulatory filings is a good description. They probably should count for something (given the "detailed" and "reliable" parts). Oftentimes, regulatory filing will be more detailed and reliable than a news article.
  3. I made a quick search for press coverage and will share my results here.
  4. In my search, I excluded articles about its quarterly or annual reports, like this one from Dagens Industri. This kind of articles are plenty, given that the subject is a publicly listed company.
  5. I also excluded coverage by financial institutions, like this one by Swedbank. I excluded because it probably can be considered "routine coverage" even though most companies do not have this kind of coverage. I also excluded other similar links like these –[10], [11], [12],[13], [14] and others.
  6. I also excluded coverage pages dedicated to publicly traded companies like those on Financial Times, Bloomberg and elsewhere. Some examples include: [15],[16], [17], [18], [19] etc.
  7. I also excluded articles by "micropublishers", like "IT Karriär" (examples here: [20], [21], etc.)
  8. When searching for media coverage, I tried to find more publishers rather than more articles from the same publisher. I don't know, there seems to be plenty. Some examples below.
  1. Resumé (magazine): [22]
  2. Placera [sv]: [23]
  3. Börskollen [sv]: [24]
  4. Realtid.se [sv]: [25]
  5. Elektroniktidningen [sv]: [26]
  6. Dagensinfrastruktur [sv]:[27]
  7. Privata Affärer [sv]: [28]
  8. Nya Wermlands-Tidningen: [29]
Atlassian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Reference Library

Electronic Reference Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Term is too generic to help find things related to this particular service. Obsolete, so we won't find much coverage of it these days. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Debian Free Software Guidelines

AfDs for this article:
Debian Free Software Guidelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[30][31]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

SurrealDB

SurrealDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
  • Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
    No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.
    However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [32] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

No Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material – Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no No Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV No Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17. Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail No First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No No WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions No Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Literally a press release No Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Leaning no No No
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs. Short circuit No Blogs aren't considered RS Yes At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement No Same as above No
Citations to their own website No
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No Interview with no secondary content No No No
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17. probably not, but not assessed No No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES No No
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

(Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)

Dubious No ... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No This is a press release No No No
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No No ... No No
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19. No Sponsored Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source No
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9. Yes Yes At least this one is an RS No
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken). – Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here Yes Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick – Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here Yes 3.2 is fine —
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?". No Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6. Yes No Passing mention
I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

HDIV

HDIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

LogFS

LogFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
  • The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
  • The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.
Dishonorable mentions:
  • The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
  • A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.
jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
     Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [33] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Shortcuts
  • WP:DSS
  • WP:DSSCIENCE
  • WP:AFD/SCI
  • WP:AFD/SCIENCE


Science

YARP

YARP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was "Appears to fail to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources." It was removed with the edit sumarry " sources exist, see talk". Those sources seem fine for verification, but they do nothing to establish notability. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Software. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would show notability which includes the sources on the article itself and the talk page. I didn't check each author for each paper, but there are four references on the article's talk page, and three of them are non-independent even without considering the reliability of the publishers: Giorgio Metta of the Sage reference is scientific director of the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (the same Metta, G. as in the article's references) and Lorenzo Natale of the 2016 Springer reference is a tenured senior scientist at the same institution, which is an institution that develops the program and owns the copyright for some of the material in the program. One of the authors of the 2014 Springer reference is Silvio Traversaro, who is one of the primary maintainers of the program's GitHub. The fourth reference is the Frontiers reference which appears to be independent, though confidence in the publisher isn't high due to considerations like the WikiProject Academic Journals assessment and an RSN disucssion (as well as non-robotics discussions including Public Health, Neurology, Genetics). The last potential reference in the article itself is this, which is not significant coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

List of explorations

List of explorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Deletion Review

Academics and educators

Matthew Levitt

Matthew Levitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites. Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).
    all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    thank you for edits and review citations.
    i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.
    pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.
    much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)
    much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?
    honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Miskin Abdal

Miskin Abdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | Who, me? 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[34][35][36][37][38] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Louis Hänni

Louis Hänni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sophia Churney

Sophia Churney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage establishing independent notability. It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of Ooberman (and to a lesser extent – The Magic Theatre, which is a section of the Ooberman article), a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't find any sourcing for this musician, other than streaming sites. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article presents no evidence of independent notability and my searches did not turn up anything. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but an unsourced stint as a grammar-school teacher obviously isn't going to pass notability that way, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ooberman. Searching ProQuest, I find multiple articles that mention her or have some short discussion of her, but it's all in the context of being a member of the band. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher)

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all sources show that Kokotajlo is notable only because of his controversial resignment from OpenAI. There are no profiles of him or his research, and I can't find any info that he won any major award or led a major team, etc. Wikipedia is not a news site, and I think that the policy says exactly this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Juan Astorga Junquera

Juan Astorga Junquera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep
Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Marilyn I. Walker

Marilyn I. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event. I found one published review of her one book [39] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book. Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR.
Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker. I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment/question - is this a case where a redirect is more appropriate? The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts. Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school. I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a redirect to the section on the Brock University article would be useful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her. Contributor892z (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Martha O'Kennon

Martha O'Kennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Retired professor with single-digit number of publications, one with 24 citations on Google Scholar and all the rest less than 10, far from enough for WP:PROF. All sources are by her or from her employer, inadequate for WP:GNG. This was already draftified and restored to article space (by copy & paste) without any significant improvement; for draft history see [40]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mathematics, Computing, China, Michigan, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Record looks far short of WP:NPROF, and no other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. She also does not meet WP:BASIC. I found one news article talking about art pieces she makes, and nothing more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Search turned up nothing to meet notability on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing came up in a search that would indicate any sort of notability. Also of note, the article creator Davidpgca (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to writing articles on Albion College related people and topics, including a number that may or may not meet notability standards. nf utvol (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Comment that, looking through images contributed by Davidpgca [41], all the images appear to be tagged as "own work". That appears to be true for very few of them (in particular, not for the ones that are 80 years old). Anyone know how to report at Commons? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I noticed that myself. I have gone in and tagged the items that are not clearly in the public domain for removal on the basis that this user is not the owner of the works. nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. She seems to have led a neat life, but not one that rises quite to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 16:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The citability data is quite low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Marcelo Moraes Caetano

Marcelo Moraes Caetano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Speech Prof

The Speech Prof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search returned only primary sources; I could not find any evidence that he meets GNG. JSFarman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: There's not a useful source in the article for notability with some blatantly unreliable such as LinkedIn, Bored Panda and The Social Strategy which is an influencer agency. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep As a good faith, i can see the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltPees (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    BASIC still requires reliable independent secondary sources with non-trivial coverage which is not met. S0091 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayathri Vivekanandan —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only Google News results are for the same event + one paragraph for a different event, and I don't think the outlets are reliable either. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A community college instructor is extremely unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and we have no independent evidence that he even is a community college instructor, leaving only WP:GNG as a possibility. But dubiously-reliable coverage of a single event isn't good enough for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indications of notability for GNG or PROF. Only sources I could find are trivial or primary, and it's difficult to nail down anything about this person that is actually reliable even when it comes to fact-of statements. nf utvol (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no claims to notability, and nothing in the sources suggests subject passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Kazi Shameem Farhad

Kazi Shameem Farhad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and possibly involve a COI. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Omid Mehrpour

Omid Mehrpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS 💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: This subject deserves a Wikipedia Page as per WP:Academics. It fulfills The criteria for academic personals.
    Shortcuts
    • WP:NACADEMIC
    • WP:NECONOMIST
As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.
Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications
•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1
•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:
1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3
2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4
3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5
Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10
Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12
Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13
As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Justin English

Justin English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP appears to be of a reasonably successful but otherwise ordinary early-career professor. I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG. Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1. Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, New York, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as per nomination. He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present. I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission. It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain (talk · contribs) and Qcne (talk · contribs). Adam Black t • c 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping @Adam Black GB. I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC, and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles. Happy to defer to consensus in this case. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your work at AfC. For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h-index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers. I'm surprised this got through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale. At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines. Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable? The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself. Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1. In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles. If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The comments above citing WP:Too soon are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlassian (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Too soon not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Amélie Chekroun

Amélie Chekroun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic biography that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Their articles and books are not widely cited and there is no available significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly fails NACADEMIC (it seems she is not a professor, let alone one of the special types that is presumed notable), and a web search found no significant coverage, independent or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF, I don't see any books that could pass WP:AUTHOR, and her position (chargée de recherche au CNRS) is still pretty junior. Directrice de recherche (the next level up) would be more likely to be notable, although still not something that leads to automatic notability. (A note, though, re the previous comment "not a professor": the French system separates academic researchers from academic teachers more than the US or UK ones do, and she is on the research track. "Professor", in the French system, is the top teaching-track position. But our notability criteria favor research over teaching. So it is entirely possible that she may become notable in a few years despite not being so now.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kamales Lardi

Kamales Lardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Zurab Gurielidze

Zurab Gurielidze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any passable source for WP:ANYBIO. Subject also doesn't pass WP:NPROF inherently. It's also lacking in terms of WP:GNG. Also, can't find good figures in directories like Google Scholar. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The Google Scholar citation counts are not promising for WP:PROF [42]. Maybe there are GNG-worthy sources hidden from me by the language barrier but we can't keep an article unless that sort of thing is actually demonstrated, not merely hoped-for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Gianni Mammolotti

Gianni Mammolotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Wuteh Vakunta

Peter Wuteh Vakunta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Jon Forshee

Jon Forshee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Discussion currently leans toward deletion, but a clearer consensus would be appreciated given that there has been an objection to deletion and thus soft-deletion seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Amna Malik

AfDs for this article:
Amna Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Lya Stern

Lya Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired TarantulaBurrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruud_Koot/Feed&oldid=807663388"